FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL24, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 12094 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 10 -C R -H L -7 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I C H A E L R I N I , D O N A L D J . O T T M A N , I I I , D O N A L D J . O T T M A N , J R ., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A p r i l24, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

M i ch ael R i n i (“ R i n i ”), D o n al d J. O ttm an , III (“O ttm an , III”), and D o n al d J. O ttm a n , J r . ( “O ttm a n , J r .” ) w e r e c h a r g e d jo in tly w ith c o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it m a il fr aud, 18 U . S . C . § 3 71 , and t en coun t s of m ai l fr aud, 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 1. A j ury f o u n d e a c h g u i l ty o f

c e r t a i n c o u n t s , a n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d th e m t o t e r ms of i m pri sonm entand o rder ed them t o m ake r es t i tut i on . O n app ea l , R i ni chal l enges hi s c on vi ct i on s f

or conspi ra cy t o com m i tm ai l fr aud, 18 U . S . C . § 3 71 , and three coun t s of m ai l fr aud, 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 1, and h i s 41-m on th sent ence . O ttm an, II I c ha l l e nge s hi s c onvi c t i ons f orc ons pi r a c y t o c om m i tm a i l f r a ud, 18 U . S . C . § 371, a n d e ig h t c o u n ts o f

m a il f r a u d , 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . O ttm a n , J r . ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f

o rc o n s p ir a c y to c o m m it m a il f r a u d , 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , a n d f o u rc o u n ts of m ai l fr aud, 18 U . S . C . § 1 34 1, and h i s 63-m on th sent ence . M ul t i pl e i s s ue s a r e r a i s e d i n thi s c ons ol i da t e d appe a l . A l l thr e e c od e f e n d a n ts a r g u e th a t th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d a t tr ia l w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in thei r c on vi ct i on s. A dd i t i on al l y, R i ni ar gu es thatthe di stri ctcourtcl ea rl y e rr ed w he n i tappl i e d s e nt e nc e e nha nc e m e nt s ba s e d on: ( 1) the a m ountof l os s ; ( 2) i n v o l v em en to f m o re th an o n e v i ct i m ; (3 ) u t i l i zat i o n o f m ass-m ark et i n g t ech n i q u es; ( 4 ) e m p lo y m e n t o f

s o p h is tic a te d m e a n s ; a n d ( 5 ) ta r g e tin g o f v u ln e r ab le v ic tim s . O ttm a n, J r . a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr one ous l y f ound the a m ountof

l os s f or s e nt e nc i ng purpos e s by a pr e ponde r a nc e of the e vi de nc e . R i ni a l s o a s s e r t s tha theWe n otethat O ttm an, Jr. al so c ontend s that: (1 ) that the g ov e rnment’ s use at trial of an o ut- 1 o f- co urt threat made to a third pa rty constituted a discover

y violation and was other wise not admissible at trial; (2) the distri ct cour t’s decision to limithis cross-e x amination at trial of the c re dit wo rt hin e ss o f v ic tim s o n re le va nc egroun ds (a) vio lat ed his SixthAm e ndment right to confrontation and plain er ror resulted and (b) was an abuse of di scretion; (3) his cross-examination concerninga co- defendant’s plea agreement was improperly restr i cted; and (4) a c onstructive amendment a

nd material varianc e occurre d. We have reviewe d each of these c laims and deter mined that they aremeritless and wa

rra nt no further

discussion. 3 has bee n h el d res po nsi bl e f or an erroneou s a m ou ntof re st i tut i on , w hi l e O ttm an, Jr . c ont e nds tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o c ons i de rhi s abi l i ty t o pa y r e s t i tut i on. W e 1 now c ons i de re a c h of

the s e a r gum e nt s i n turn. I. S u ff

i ci en cy of th e E vi d en ce We r e v i e w de nov o chal l enges t o the suff i ci ency of the evi dence i n cri m i nal c a s e s , v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e g o v e rn m e n t. U ni t ed S ta te s v . Fu tr e ll , 20 9 F . 3d 12 86 , 12 88 (11th C i r. 20 00 ) ( per c uri am ).

“ A f t e rthe gove rnm e ntc l os e s i t s e vi de nc e ora f t e rthe c l os e of

a l l the e vi de nc e , the c our ton the de f e nda nt ' s m ot i on m us te nt e ra j udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l of a n y o f f e n s e f o rw h i c h th e e v i d e n c e i s i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s u s t a i n a c o n v i c t i o n . ” Fe d . R. C r im . P . 2 9 ( a ) . “I t is n o t n e c e s s a ry th a t th e e v id e n c e e x c lu d e e v e ry r e a s o n ab le hy pothe s i s of

i nnoc e nc e orbe w hol l y i nc ons i s t e ntw i th e ve ry c onc l us i on e xc e pt thatof gu i l t . ” U

n i t ed S ta t es v. Fa u st , 4 5 6 F .3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e r t. de ni e d, 127 S . C t . 615 ( 2006) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . T he r e l e va nt que s t i on i n r e vi e w i ng the de ni a l of a m ot i on f

ora c qui tt a l “ i s w he the r , a f t e rvi e w i ng4

th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r ab le to th e p r o s e c u tio n , any ra t i on al tri erof fa ct coul d h ave f

ou nd the es se nt i al el em ent s of the cr i m e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt . ” J a c k s o n v . V ir g in ia , 443 U . S . 307, 319, 99 S . C t . 2781, 2789, 61 L . E d. 2d 560 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . “A c o n v ic tio n m u s t b e u p h e ld u n le s s th e ju ry c o u ld notha ve f

ound the de f

e nda ntgui l ty unde ra ny r e a s onabl e c ons truc t i on of the evi dence. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . C h a s ta in , 19 8 F . 3d 13 38 , 13 51 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). T o e s t abl i s h c ons pi r a c y t o de f r a ud unde r18 U . S . C . § 371, the gove rnm e nt m ustprov e bey on d a re as on abl e dou bt“ (1) a n agreement a m on g tw o o r m ore pe r s ons t o a c hi e ve a n unl a w f ul obj e c t i ve ; ( 2) know i ng a nd vol unt a ry pa r t i c i pa t i on i n the a gr e e m e nt ; a nd ( 3) a n ove r ta c tby a c ons pi r a t ori n f ur the r a nc e of

the agre em ent . ” U

ni t e d Stat e s v . E l l i ngton , 34 8 F . 3d 98 4, 98 9 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( per cu riam ) ( q u o tati o n m ar k s a n d citati o n o m itted ) ( re v er sin g th e d istrict co u rt’s de c i s i on t o gr a nta j udgm e ntof a c qui tt a l i n a n 18 U . S . C . § 371 c ons pi r a c y a nd 18 U . S . C . §1341 m a i l f

r a ud c a s e ) . “ T he e xi s t e nc e of a n a gr e e m e ntm a y be pr ove n by ci rc um st ant i al evi dence, i ncl ud i ng i nfer ence s f rom the cond uctof the al l eged part i ci pant s or f

rom ci rc um st ant i al evi dence of a s chem e. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. S i lvestri , 4 0 9 F .3 d 1 3 1 1 , 1 3 2 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 126 S . C t . 772 ( 2005) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n f a c t , a n e nt i r e “ [ c ] ons pi r a c y m a y be prov en by ci rc um st ant i al evi dence and the ext entof part i ci pat i on i n the conspi ra cy5

ore xt e ntof

know l e dge of

de t a i l s i n the c ons pi r a c y doe s notm a tt e ri f the pr oof show s the defendantkn ew the es se nt i al obj ec t i ve of the conspi ra cy . ” U ni t ed Stat es v . G u p ta , 463 F . 3d 1182, 1194 ( 11th C i r . 2006) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt ed). T o e s t abl i s h m a i l f

r a ud unde r18 U . S . C . § 1341, the gove rnm e ntm us tpr ove be y ond a r e a s onabl e doubttha tthe de f e nda nt“ ( 1) i nt e nt i ona l l y pa r t i c i pa t e d i n a sc hem e or a rt i fi ce t o d ef raud and (2) used the U ni t ed S t at es m ai l s t o carry ou tthat sc hem e or a rt i fi ce . ” E l l i ngton , 348 F . 3d a t988, 990 ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . I n or de rt o be c onvi c t e d of a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng m a i l f r a ud, “ the G ove rnm e ntm us tde m ons tr a t e tha tthe D e f e nda ntha d the s a m e w i l l f ul ne s s a nd u n la w f u l in te n t a s th e a c tu a l p e rp e tr a to r s o f th e f r a u d . . . .” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 390 F . 3d 1319, 1324 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( di s c us s i ng a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng bank fr aud). F ur the r m or e , i f

a j ury di s be l i e ve s t e s t i m ony , i tm a y pr ope r l y i nf e rtha tthe o p p o s ite o f

th e te s tim o n y is tru e . U n ite d S ta te s v . Me

jia , 8 2 F .3 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 3 8 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1996) . “ [ A ] j ury c a n tr e a ta de f e nda nt ’ s t e s t i m ony – e ve n i f a l l the w or ds d e n y w r o n g d o in g – a s p r o o f o f g u ilt [ b e c a u s e ] th e ju ry is u n iq u e ly ab le to eval uat e the defendant ’ s dem ea no r on the w i tness st and. ” I d. T h e ju ry is th e s o le de t e r m i ne rof

a w i tne s s ’ s c r e di bi l i ty a nd i t s f i ndi ngs of

c r e di bi l i ty m a y notbe6

r e v i e we d u n l e s s th e wi tn e s s ’ s t e s t i m o n y wa s i n c r e d i b l e a s a m a tt e ro f l a w. U ni t ed Stat e s v . C alde r on , 1 2 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 4 , 1 3 2 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . S u c h te s tim o n y is

“ unbe l i e vabl e on i t s f

a c e ” orc ont a i ns “ f

a c t s tha tthe w i tne s s phy s i c a l l y c oul d not ha ve pos s i bl y obs e r ve d ore ve nt s tha tc oul d notha ve oc c urr e d unde rthe l a w s of nature. ” I

d . at13 25 (c i t at i on s, qu ot at i on m arks, and al t er at i on om i tt ed). U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt s , a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of

the br i e f s of the pa r t i e s , w e di s c e rn no r e ve r s i bl e e rr or . S uf f i c i e nt evi dence s up po rt s a l l three conv i ct i on s. A l tho ug h n o d i re ctevi dence of a conspi ra cy w as pres ent ed, the go vernm entpres ent ed ci rc um st ant i al evi dence at tri al t o sho w : (1) the defendant s e ng aged i n an adv ance fe e l oan schem e, w here v ic tim s m a ile d in ap p lic a tio n f e e s in o r d e rto r e c e iv e lo a n s th e y w e r e f r a u d u le n tly l ed t o b el i eve they w ou l d rec ei ve; and (2) the defendant s’ kn ow i ng and v ol un t ary p a r tic ip a tio n in th e s c h e m e . Se e G u p ta , 4 6 3 F .3 d 1 1 8 2 , 1 1 9 4 ; S i lvestri , 40 9 F . 3d at 1 3 2 8 ; E l l i ngton , 34 8 F . 3d at98 9. F urtherm ore, al tho ug h an o vertac tre qu i re d for a co n sp i racy n eed n o th av e b een co m m i tt ed b y each o f th e d efen d an t s, s e e E l l i ngton , 34 8 F . 3d at98 9, here , ea ch defendantcom m i tt ed m ul t i pl e overtac t s i n furthera nce: R i ni re peat edl y t ol d cal l er s thatthey w er e app roved for the se rvi ce s; O ttm an, II I he l pe d t o e s t abl i s h the l e ndi ng c om pa ny , t ol d a n e m pl oy e e t o c ont i nue us i ng a scri p tth atw o u l d m i sl ead cal l ers, v ery l i k el y co m p l ai n ed t o th e B ett er B u si n ess7

B u r e a u ab o u t th e w a y in w h ic h it w a s c h a r a c te r iz in g th e c o m p a n y , a n d s p o k e w ith c a l l e r s w ho w e r e s e e ki ng r e f unds ; a nd O ttm a n, J r . de ni e d “ gua r a nt e e d l oa ns ” m a de b y th e l e n d i n g c o mp a n y a n d i n c r e a s e d th e p e r i o d o f t i me d u r i n g w h i c h v i c t i ms w e r e lu lle d in to a f

a ls e s e n s e o f

s e c u r ity . B a s e d o n th is a n d o th e re v id e n c e a t tr ia l, a “ r a t i ona l tr i e rof

f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound the e s s e nt i a l e l e m e nt s of the c r i m e [ of conspi ra cy ] beyond a r ea sonabl e dou bt . ” J ac k s on , 44 3 U . S . at31 9, 99 S . C t . at 2 7 8 9 . T h erefo re, w e affi rm al l th ree co n v i ct i o n s fo r co n sp i racy. T he m a i l f

r a ud c ount s w e r e a l s o s uf f i c i e nt l y e s t abl i s he d a ttr i a l . W he the rthe defe nd ant s a ctual l y c om m i tt ed ea ch i nd i vi du al m ai l fr aud o r w er e m er el y a i ders a n d ab e tto r s is irr e le v a n t. Wi l l i a ms , 390 F . 3d a t1324. F ors om e of the m a i l f

r a ud c ount s , a r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve de t e r m i ne d tha te a c h de f e nda nt ’ s a c t i ons c o n s titu te d in te n tio n a l p a r tic ip a tio n in th e s c h e m e a n d u s e o f th e m a ils in f ur the r a nc e ; f

orothe r s , a r a t i ona l tr i e rof f a c tc oul d ha ve f

ound tha tthe y ha d the s a m e w i l l f

ul ne s s a nd unl a w f

ul i nt e nta s w hoe ve rha d pe r s ona l l y de a l tw i th the v ic tim s . J

ac k s on , 4 4 3 U .S . a t 3 1 9 , 9 9 S . C t. a t 2 7 8 9 ; Wi l l i a ms , 390 F . 3d a t1324; E l l i ngton , 34 8 F . 3d at99 0. C on tra ry t o R i ni ’ s c l ai m , the st at em ent s of three vi c t i m s tha tthe y s poke w i th “ M i ke ” w e r e ne i the runbe l i e vabl e on the i rf a c e nor p h y s ic a lly im p o s s ib le a n d , h e n c e , n o t in c r e d ib le a s a m a tte ro f la w . Se e C alde r on , 127 F . 3d a t1325. A ddi t i ona l l y , a l though O ttm a n, I I I t e s t i f i e d t o hi s i nnoc e nc e , the8

ju ry w a s e n title d to d is b e lie v e h im a n d r e a c h th e o p p o s ite c o n c lu s io n . Me jia , 82 F . 3d a t1038. B e c a us e , vi e w i ng the e vi de nc e i n the l i ghtm os tf a vor abl e t o the gove rnm e nt , the j ury c oul d ha ve f ound a l l thr e e de f

e nda nt s gui l ty of

m a i l f r a ud unde ra r e a s onabl e c ons truc t i on of the e vi de nc e , w e a f

f i r m the i rm a i l f

r a ud c o n v ic tio n s . Se e Fu tr e ll , 2 0 9 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 8 ; C h a s ta in , 198 F . 3d a t1351. II. R i n i ’s S en te n ci n g E n h an ce m en ts

“ P art i es m ustsubm i tal l i ss ues on app ea l i n thei r i ni t i al bri ef s. ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . N

e a ly , 2 3 2 F .3 d 8 2 5 , 8 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “W h e n a n ap p e lla n t f a ils to offe r a rgum enton an i ss ue, thati ss ue i s aband on ed. ” Se pulv e da v . U

. S. A t t ’ y G e n. , 401 F . 3d 1226, 1228 n. 2 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . P a s s i ng r e f e r e nc e s t o the is s u e a r e in s u f

f ic ie n t to p r e v e n t ab a n d o n m e n t. Se e id . S im ila r ly , f a ilin g “to e l abor a t e orpr ovi de a ny c i t a t i on of a uthor i ty i n s uppor t ” w a i ve s the a r gum e ntf or ap p e lla te p u rp o s e s . Fla n ig a n ’s E n te r p r is e s , I n c . v . Fu lto n C o u n ty , 242 F . 3d 976, 98 7 n . 16 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( per c uri am ). W e c on cl ud e thatR i ni ’ s a rgum ent s a s t o the enhancem ent s t o h i s s ent ence fo r am o u n to f l o ss, i n v o l v em en to f m o re th an o n e v i ct i m , u t i l i zat i o n o f m assm a r ke t i ng t e c hni que s , e m pl oy m e ntof s ophi s t i c a t e d m e a ns , a nd t a r ge t i ng of vul ne r abl e vi c t i m s ha ve be e n aba ndone d be c a us e the s e c t i on of hi s br i e f a ddr e s s i ng the s e i s s ue s c ons i s t s of

s l i ght l y m or e tha n one pa ge of t e xt( a good por t i on of9

w h ic h is u s e d to a r g u e th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u s ta in a n y o f

h is conv i ct i on s) , ci t es no ca se l aw , and con t ai ns concl usory s t at em ent s. E ven a s s u m in g , ar

gue ndo , th atth ese i ssu es w ere n o tab an d o n ed , h o w ev er, w e al so c onc l ude the y a r e m e r i t l e s s , a s R i ni i s l i abl e notj us tf orhi s i ndi vi dua l a c t i ons , but fo r th e act i o n s o f h i s fel l o w co n sp i rat o rs. I I I . Ot t ma n , J r . ’ s S e n t e n c i n g Cl a i ms W e r e v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's f in d in g s o f

f a c t f o rc le a re rr o ra n d its ap p l i cat i o n o f th e sen t en ci n g g u i d el i n es t o th o se fact s de no vo . U ni t ed Stat es v. H um ber , 25 5 F . 3d 13 08 , 13 11 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). U n d e ra n a d v is o ry g u id e lin e s s c h e m e , th e u s e o f e x tr a - v e r d ic t e n h a n c e m e n ts is n o t u n c o n s titu tio n a l. U ni t ed Stat es v. R odri

gu ez , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 3 0 1 - 0 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , ce rt. deni ed , 54 5 U . S . 11 27 (200 5). A di stri ctcourtm ay m ake f ac tual fi nd i ng s a tse nt enci ng by a pre po nd er ance of the evi dence even i f these fa ct s w er e n o t c h a r g e d in th e in d ic tm e n t, a d m itte d b y th e d e f e n d a n t, o rf

o u n d b y a ju ry . U ni t e d Stat e s v . C hau , 42 6 F . 3d 13 18 , 13 23 -24 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ) ( per c uri am ). I f a d is tr ic t c o u r t a t s e n te n c in g s ta te s th a t w h e th e ra n e n h a n c e m e n t is i m po se d h as no ef

fe cton the ov er al l se nt ence af t erthe § 3 55 3(a) fa ct ors a re c o n s id e r e d , th e n a s lo n g a s th e s e n te n c e is r e a s o n ab le , a n y e rr o ris h a r m le s s . See U ni t e d Stat e s v . Ke e ne , 470 F . 3d 1347, 1349 ( 11th C i r . 2006) . T he bur de n i s on10

th e d e f e n d a n t to e s tab lis h a n u n r e a s o n ab le s e n te n c e . I d . a t1350. T h e a m o u n t o f

lo s s n e c e s s a ry to e n h a n c e a s e n te n c e n e e d n o t b e p r e c is e ly d e t e r m i n e d , a s l o n g a s th e c o u r tm a k e s a r e a s o n ab l e e s t i m a t e o f th e l o s s . U. S . S . G. § 2F 1. 1, c m t . n. 9. W e ha ve he l d tha ta l l f r a ud orde c e i tl os s e s gove rne d by U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1 “ m a y be i m put e d t o a de f e nda ntw ho w a s a m e m be rof the conspi ra cy w hi ch caused tho se l osse s. ” U n i t ed S ta t es v. R a

yb o rn , 957 F . 2d 841, 84 4 (11 th C i r. 19 92 ) ( per c uri am ). U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd s e nt e nc i ng tr a ns c r i pt s , a nd upon consi dera t i on of the bri ef s of the part i es , w e a gai n d i sc ern n o revers i bl e e rr or. A s a n in itia l m a tte r , b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t n o te d th a t th e s a m e s e n te n c e w o u ld ha ve be e n i m pos e d r e ga r dl e s s of the a m ountof

l os s a nd s t a t e d tha tthe s e nt e nc i ng c om pl i e d w i th the f

a c t or s t o be c ons i de r e d unde r§ 3553( a ) , a s l ong a s O ttm a n, J r .’s s e n te n c e w a s r e a s o n ab le , a n y e rr o rw a s h a rm le s s . Se e Ke e ne , 47 0 F . 3d at 1349. O ttm a n, J r . w a s c onvi c t e d on one c ountof c ons pi r a c y a nd f

ourc ount s of m a i l f r a ud a nd ha s notde m ons tr a t e d tha ta s e nt e nc e of 63 m onths ’ i m pr i s onm e nt w a s u n r e a s o n ab le o n th e s e f a c ts . Se e i d. In any e vent , the ei gh t -poi ntam ou ntof l oss e nh ance m entappl i ed here w as n o terro n eo u s b ecau se O ttm an , Jr. i s l i ab l e fo r th e l o ss cau sed b y th e co n sp i racy. See R a yb o rn , 957 F . 2d a t844. T he pos t a l i ns pe c t ort e s t i f i e d tha tthe a m ountof11

l os s w a s $322, 643. 93, a nd the di s tr i c tc our ti m pl i c i t l y a dopt e d the f i ndi ngs of

the P S I a nd det erm i ned thatthe conspi ra cy re sul t ed i n a l oss of $32 2, 64 3. 93 , or m ore tha n $200, 000, butl e s s tha n $350, 000, w hi c h m a de a n e i ght - poi nte nha nc e m e ntf or a m ountof

l os s appr opr i a t e . U . S . S . G . § 2F 1. 1( b) ( 1) ( I ) . T hus , thi s f i ndi ng w a s not c le a re rr o r . See H

um ber , 255 F . 3d a t1311. I V . R e s t i t u t i on T he di s tr i c tc our tdi d note rri n hol di ng R i ni orO ttm a n, J r . j oi nt l y a nd s e v e r a l l y l i ab l e f

o rth e t o t a l a mo u n to f

l o s s . U n d e rth e M a n d a t o ry V i c t i ms R es t i tut i on A ctof 19 96 , 18 U . S . C . §§ 36 63 A -366 4, “ the di stri ctcourtm ustorder the pa y m e ntof

r e s t i tut i on i n the f

ul l a m ountof

the vi c t i m ’ s l os s w i thout consi deri ng the defendant ’ s abi l i ty t o p ay . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Si egel , 153 F . 3d 1256, 1258 ( 11th C i r . 1998) . A di s tr i c tc our tha s l i m i t e d di s c r e t i on i n c a l c ul a t i ng re st i tut i on and “ m ustorder r es t i tut i on t o eac h v i ct i m i n the ful l am ou ntof ea ch v ic tim ’s lo s s e s f

o r , in te ra lia , cr i m es agai nstprop erty. ” C an iv. U ni t ed Stat es , 331 F . 3d 1210, 1214 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( quot a t i on m a r ks a nd c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . “ I f the c our tf i nds tha tm or e tha n one de f e nda ntha s c ontr i but e d t o the l os s of a vi c t i m , the c our tm a y m a ke e a c h de f e nda ntl i abl e f

orpa y m e ntof

the f ul l a m ountof

r e s t i tut i on orm a y appor t i on l i abi l i ty a m ong the de f e nda nt s t o r e f

l e c tthe l e ve l of

c ontr i but i on to th e v ic tim ’s lo s s a n d e c o n o m ic c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f e a c h d e f e n d a n t.” 1 8 U .S .C . §12

36 64 (h). B ec ause the co-defe nd ant s c on tri bu t ed t o the vi ct i m s’ l oss, i tw as approp ri at e f

or the courtt o h ol d them j oi nt l y a nd se vera l l y l i abl e. F ur the r m or e , w he n a de f e nda nta s s e r t s f

orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l tha tthe d is tr ic t c o u r t f

a ile d to c o n s id e rh is ab ility to p a y r e s titu tio n , r e v ie w is f o rp la in e rr o r . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 289 F . 3d 1260, 1265 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( r e vi e w i ng f o rp la in e rr o rd e f

e n d a n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t f a ile d to c o n s id e rh is abi l i ty t o pa y r e s t i tut i on) . A s O ttm a n, J r . ’ s abi l i ty t o pa y r e s t i tut i on i s r a i s e d f or the f i r s tt i m e on appe a l a nd ne e d notha ve be e n c ons i de r e d by the di s tr i c tc our t , no e rr o r– p la in o ro th e rw is e – o c c u rr e d . Se e i d. ; Si egel , 1 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 2 5 8 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e a f

f ir m a s to a ll is s u e s r a is e d in th is ap p e a l. AF F I RME D.